Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!christian From: mlawless@ncrwic.wichita.ncr.com (Mike Lawless) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Scripture ends? Message-ID: Date: 6 Jul 89 06:13:07 GMT Sender: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS Lines: 105 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article kilroy@mimsy.UUCP (Dar >Speaking as one of those many people, I wish to point out that assuming >the Apostle John is speaking of the Bible as a whole has the problem that >the Bible didn't exist yet. > >[Actually, we don't know the dates of any of the books reliably. >Rev., along with the other Johannine literature, is normally dated >fairly late. It is quite likely that Paul's letters are before any of >the gospels, but I'd bet that Rev. is after all the gospels except >possibly John's. --clh] I recall reading commentaries on Revelation which suggest that the author of Revelation may not have been John the Apostle, but another John. After all, the author's references to himself read "I, John," not "I, the Apostle John." What I don't recall is the justification for this point of view. It is obviously difficult to point to writing style to identify the writer, because of the apocalypic style of Revelation. Does anyone out there know more about the background of this theory? BTW, the position taken by most Catholic scholars regarding Revelation was that Revelation was not intended to be prophecy, but rather reassurance to Christians who were being persecuted at the time (the author himself was imprisoned when he wrote it); if I recall correctly, this is thought to be during the viscious persecution of Christians by Nero. One of the many interpretations of the mysterious number 666 is that in the numerology of the time, it was the number of the name Nero Caesar (spelled in either Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, I don't recall which). Also, apparently there is some discrepancy among various translations as to whether the number is 666 or, I believe, 626 [616 --clh], and this discrepancy can be explained by considering which language is used in making the calculation. The reason for the use of the apocalyptic style and numerological references is that they were subject to both censorship and intensified persecution if they were caught writing anything that was identifiably Christian, so they "coded" their writing so they could make sense of it, given their Christian background, but the Romans would not be able to understand it. If this view is correct, and I tend to think it is, then most if not all of what Revelation refers to has already occurred centuries ago, and everyone trying to figure out the name of the beast or the date of the last day, or anything else based on Revelation is doomed to failure, because the information just isn't there. Notice, for example, that everyone who has so far announced a date of the second coming of Christ has been off the mark. Based on this alone, I don't have much faith in those who insist that the anti-christ must be the Pope, or Henry Kissinger (I actually heard that one once, believe it or not), or anyone else. The Nero theory at least has the virtue of making a certain amount of sense, but even that one cannot be proven conclusively one way or the other. I prefer to heed the words of Christ, when he said "Be constantly prepared, because you know not the day nor the hour (the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, among other places). In a sense, the words of Revelation, even if specifically directed to people living at the time it was written, apply to people of all times, including today. Christians may not be thrown to the lions anymore, but they are subject to abuse by the government to a greater or lesser extent, depending on where they live, and by anti-Christian bigots. But to look for prophecy of specific events, especially the second coming, in the words of Revelation is, I think, missing the point, and probably futile as well. -- Mike Lawless, NCR E&M Wichita, Box 20 (316) 636-8666 (NCR: 654-8666) 3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita, KS 67226 Mike.Lawless@Wichita.NCR.COM {ece-csc,hubcap,gould,rtech}!ncrcae!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA}!ncr-sd!ncrwic!Mike.Lawless [A couple of comments. First, the theory that apocalyptic style is because of Roman censorship is probably wrong. Yes, Christians were persecuted in some times and places and probably Christian books destroyed. But people are thinking of the KGB, reading all publications to find evidence of subversion. I don't think the Romans worked that way, particularly not during this period. I think you'll find that the apocalyptic style developed on its own. You can see it starting back as far as Daniel. There's a rich literature from this period, both Jewish and Christian. The idea of secret insight was part of the appeal. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "prophecy". Rev. seems to be a combination of comfort and warning. Very much the same as the OT prophets. I agree with your comments about the intention of Rev., but to say that this is not prophecy is taking a rather narrow view of the prophet's role. The prophet was announcing God's judgement, not satisfying people's curiosity about the future. Rev. seems to be a vision on two levels, that of visible earthly history and that of supernatural events. I agree that it was intended to give Christians confidence, but it did this by showing them that the earthly events they were seeing were earthly manifestations of a battle between supernatural powers. The idea was to change people's perspectives, to get them to be sensitive to the supernatural implications of what they were seeing. Certainly we can see some of what was described as things that happened or were expected to happen in the late 1st/early 2nd Cent. But surely some of the things were on a different scale, and transcended normal history. Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything specific you said. As you say, I certainly don't suggest that the author of Rev. had in mind the Common Market or whatever. But I don't think we want to reduce Rev. entirely to an allegorical description of 1st Cent. history. --clh]